ML20206S641

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 980601 ACRS Matls & Metallurgy Subcommittee Meeting in Rockville,Md Re NRC Staff Concerns Related to ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section III Rule Revs
ML20206S641
Person / Time
Issue date: 06/22/1998
From:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-3110, NUDOCS 9905210187
Download: ML20206S641 (6)


Text

0

?7%F

&fS - 8llh n

GE$Illl[

k W

CERTIF.IED:

July 8, 1998 Date Issued: June 22, 1998

)

i ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MATERIALS AND METALLURGY SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES l

JUNE 1. 1998 i

ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND The ACRS Subcommittee on Materials and Metallurgy met on June 1.1998, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, in Room T-2B3, The purpose of the i

meeting was to review the NRC staff's concerns related to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III rule revisions, which are contained in the 1994 Addenda for Class 1, 2, and 3 piping systems.- Mr. Noel Dudley was the cognizant ACRS staff engineer for this meeting. The meeting was convened at 1:30 p.m. and adjourned at 6:15 p.m. on June 1, 1998.

ATTENDEES ACES W. Shack. Chairman D. Powers, Member M. Fontana. Member N. Dudley, Staff Engineer T. Kress. Member NRC STAFF L. Shao, RES K. Jaguay, Casco Services R. Wessman. NRR R. Kennedy, Structural Mechanics N. Chokshi, RES Consulting Inc.

ASME and JAPANESE G. Eisenberg, ASME Y Asada, University of Tokyo R. Barnes. ASME

0. Oyamada. Hitachi Ltd.

T. Yamazaki. Hokuriku Electric Power Co.

There were no written comments or requests for time to make oral statements received from members of the public. An attendance list of the NRC staff and F

public is available in the ACRS office files and will be made available upon request.

SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN INTRODUCTION 5

y" CYq Dr. William Shack. Subcommittee Chairman, convened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.

and recognized the representatives of the American Society of Mechanical l

Engineers (ASME) and Japan who would participate in the meeting.

pC p 9905210187 990622 ~

DESIG HTED ORIGINAL,

O PDR N

1 certified By

{

4 i

fe

, Materials and Metallurgy Subcommittee 2

June 1. 1998 l

NRC STAFF PRESENTATION Dr. Larry Shao. RES, stated that the NRC has concerns with the ASME 1994 Addenda that revised piping seismic design criteria.

He explained that the

{

NRC sponsored research project, which was initiated to review the technical j

basis of the new design criteria, had been completed.

Mr. Richard Wessman.

NRR. noted that for the last two years, two NRC engineers had been assigned as liaisons to the ASME Special Working Group for Seismic Rules (SWG-SR), which was reassessing the ASME 1994 Addenda-.

s PIPING SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA - Mr. Nilesh C. Chokshi RES Mr. Nilesh C. Chokshi. RES. explained that the NRC staff's concerns were related to the ASME 1994 Addenda, which specifies significantly higher allowable stresses for seismic piping designs than those previously specified.

He stated that the NRC staff has not accepted the revised criteria because of technical concerns.

Mr. Chokshi presented the background and chronology of the piping seismic design criteria.

He explained that the major assumption in the new criteria is that piping fails in fatigue or fatigue ratcheting modes but not in a collapse mode. Mr. Chokshi stated that there was insufficient test data to support that assumption and that there was little basis for establishing a minimum desi-A rgin

.He noted that the NRC initiated a research program at the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) in 1993 to evaluate test data and to develop an approach for establishing minimum design margin.

He stated that the program findings confirmed the NRC concerns related to the 1994 Addenda.

The Subcommittee members and the staff discussed what test data the NRC research program reviewed.

NUREG/CR-5361: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF PIPING - Mr. Ken Jaquay. Casco Services Mr. Ken Jaquay. Casco Services, provided an overview of the contents of lp NUREG/CR-5361 " Seismic Analysis of Piping." He explained that the 1994 Addenda increased the allowable values for the inertia loads used in the Service Level D Equation and the weight momentum stress (B ).

Based on work 2

done by ETEC and the associated Peer Review Group. Mr. Jaquay identified the following areas of critical deficiency:

component fragility test extrapolation for ratchet-fatigue margin.

a pipe collapse failure mode.

acceptable piping system margins, i

L

h L.,

j

,Materipls and Metallurgy Subcomittee 3

June 1. 1998 B values for straights and girth butt welds.

2 high temperature carbon steel moment capacity.

prior service fatigue damage, and 1ack of excluded coverage.

)

i He concluded that the areas of critical deficiency should be studied in more detail prior to adopting changes to the piping regulations. Mr. Jaguay

)

completed his presentation by showing a video tape of experimental tests where

.l a pipe collapsed.

d The Subcommittee members, the NRC staff. ASME representatives, and Mr. Jaauay I

discussed the_following:

. effects of cracks not being present in the areas of stress.

predictions of the failures seen in the experimental. tests.

a prediction of margins using test data with large scatter.

1994 Addenda applicability to an equation that assumes constant stress.

interaction between fatigue and ratchet fatigue, and effect on the experiment test results of pressurizing the pipe sections.

)

RISK BASED APPROACH TO SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PIPING Dr. Robert-P. Kennedy. Structural Mechanical Consulting. Inc.

Dr. Robert P. Kennedy. Structural Mechanical Consulting. Inc., presented a framework for-establishing piping seismic design criteria, which are sufficiently conservative to avoid piping becoming a significant contributor j

to the seismic risk. He derived the required piping code capacity factor of

. safety defined in terms of 1% probability of failure capacity (Rcp n) and recommended a value of about 2.0.

Dr. Kennedy used component test data and his recommended value for Rcpa to establish a code criteria to achieve the desired seismic capacity margin.

He j

noted that the elbow test data (B >3.0) and non-elbow test data (B -1.0) were i

2 2

not part of the same homogeneous data set and could not be combined. However.,

Dr. Kennedy proposed replacing B for oscillatory dynamics loads on non-elbow f

2 piping with B*2 = B or 2.0. whichever is greater.. With the proposed change.

2 Dr. Kennedy believed it was reasonable to combine elbow and'non-elbow data.

He. concluded that a strength factor can be reasonably extrapolated ~from test data to be about l'.5.

Dr. Kennedy compared his conclusion with nonlinear l

L studies done by Dr. Wilfred Iwan from Caltech.

I

[..

t l

Materials and Metallurgy Subcomittee 4

June 1. 1998 i

He recommended that the value for B be varied based on test data to remove 2

some of the conservatism from the code.

box

  • on this recommendation the average number of piping supports required by the design code could be reduced i

from 15 to 10.

The Subcommittee members, ASME representatives, and Dr. Kennedy discussed the following:

l the yield stresses used for stainless steel and carbon steel.

j use of B for nonlinear and cyclic loading.

1 2

treatment of the data point for the collapsed pipe.

effects of high temperature on stainless steel, fitting of the test data to a log-normal distribution, confidence level for the safety factors.

the larger displacement of more flexible piping systems, and effects of flaw distribution.

JAPANESE PROJECTS ON ELASTIC-PLASTIC SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR POWER PIPING - Drs. Y. Asada, University of Tokyo: T. Yamazaki. Hokuriku Electric Power Company; and O. 0yamada. Hitachi Ltd.

Dr. Y. Asada. University of Tokyo, explained the concept of super-imposing steady state stresses due to operating loads on reversing stresses due to seismic loads.

He showed the resulting strain behavior on a pipe caused by high reversing stresses in the elastic-plastic region and indicated that the pipe would undergo fatigue failure.

Dr. Asada presented his Asada equation for fatigue and ductility damage.

He explained the process the Japanese were following to establish new seismic design criteria. The process includes material specimen tests, static and dynamic cyclic loading tests, analyses.

predictions, numerical simulations, and standardization of new seismic rules.

Dr. T. Yamazaki, Hokuriku Electric Power Company, provided an outline of the Japanese test program. All dynamic tests were conducted under displacement control and failed by ratcheting fatigue.

Both static and dynamic test P

results showed the same elastic-plastic and failure behavior.

Dr. Yamazaki presented the program schedule, which includes additional component tests, L

seismic proving tests, and development of new rules. He stated that the Japanese plan to continue technical discussions with ASME on the new piping seismic rules.

Dr. Yamazaki narrated a video of several test that resulted in pipe failures and presented the results of the tests.

L

e.

, Mater 1,als and Metallurgy Subcomittee 5

June 1. 1998 The Subcommittee. ASME representatives NRC staff, and the Japanese discussed the following:

why bent pipes were used in the test instead of elbows, what value of B was used in the tests.

2 whether the tests results excluded the possibility of piping collapse, the results of high temperature tests, and a

the results of test analyses.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS - Mr. Richard Barnes, ASME Mr. Richard Barnes. ASME, explained the standards development process in

~

general and the development of the 1994 Addenda in pa'rticular.

He presented the engineering and experimental expertise required to develop an ASME standard.

Mr. Barnes presented test results that support the 1994 Addenda.

He stated that the existing rules need to be refined based on Dr. Kennedy's, recommendations, and that most short term action items listed in NUREG/CR-1061 can be accommodated by ASME Committee action.

He noted that the ASME SWG-SR is open to all input on the seismic rule issue.

Mr. Barnes stated that it is fundamentally important that all stakeholders maintain an active status in the standards development process.

The Subcommittee members, the NRC staff, and Mr. Barnes discussed the following:

how the 1994 Addenda was published with outstanding objections.

what consensus means.

=

use of expert elicitation in the standards development process.

reduced level of NRC involvement in the ASME SWG-SR, and impact of seismic rules on new plants.

STAFF AND INDUSTRY COMMITMENTS The staff and the ASME representatives committed to keep the Subcommittee

.3 informed of the progress made by the ASME SWG-SR, SUBCOMMITTEE DECISIONS The Subcommittee decided to schedule a briefing on the proposed ASME Code change after the ASME SWG-SR reaches a consensus and the results of the l

Japanese analyses of their test data become available.

s

c.

I I

Materials and Metallurgy Subcommittee 6

June 1, 1998 FOLLOW UP ACTIONS

. No follow up actions were identified.

PRESENTATION SLIDES AND HANDOUTS PROVIDED DURING THE MEETING The presentation slides and handouts used during.the meeting are available in the ACRS office-files or'as attachments to the transcript.

BACKGROUND MATERIAL PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE 1.

Letter dated May 24, 1995, from Brian W.

Sheron, NRR to G.M.

Eisenberg, Director. Nuclear Codes and Standards. ASME,

Subject:

ASME Code Revisions to the Design Rules for Piping Systems.

2.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-5361, " Seismic Analysis of Piping," published May 1998.

NOTE: Additional details of this meet-ing can be obtained from a transcript available in the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20006. (202) 634-3274, or can be purchased from Ann Riley & Associates. LTD., 1250 I Street. N.W.

Suite 300, Washington.

D.C. 20005. (202) 842-0034.

_.s i

l

(